This book starts strong and ends up meandering. Probably the first 50% of the book is really an indirect explanation of why the Chevron deference was This book starts strong and ends up meandering. Probably the first 50% of the book is really an indirect explanation of why the Chevron deference was heading for the ash heap of history, with examples of the administrative state writing and enforcing regulations that are far beyond the legal framework provided by legislation.
While Gorsuch does not directly suggest to the Legislative or Executive branches what they might do to improve the current situation, he strongly implies that no major rules should be published which are not approved by a Presidential appointee. He also indirectly suggests to Congress that they should be consistently revising confusing laws, rather waiting for random outcomes from the Judicial branch. He implies but doesn't suggest that prosecutors at all levels need to be more worried about following the law than winning in court. He also suggests every government department and semi-independent body should be required to create a searchable database of all rules, regulations, guidance documents, and related court findings. I liked all of this stuff.
Gorsuch goes out of his way to make it clear he believes illegal immigrants have Constitutional protection. I strongly disagree. If you're a guest in my home, you get fed, invited to use the bathroom, may spend the night, and you'll be made comfortable. If you break into my home, you'll be ejected using whatever force is necessary to quickly complete the task without regard to how this may negatively impact you. If you show up on my porch seeking safety, only after I've listened to your story and ascertained whether or not I agree my cooperating is necessary to keep you safe, you may be invited in or asked to get off my porch. If you're invited in, that may be until it stops raining or it may be for as long as you need to get on your feet. I see immigration as working the same way. If you've broken into the country without stopping on the porch, you have lost your opportunity to pretend we had the conversation as though you paused on the porch.
Following Gorsuch's prescription, we will never get the millions of criminal illegal immigrants outta here. They'll be here until they die of old age.
The last portion of the book pleads for civility in politics. While this is a nice thought, it doesn't fit with the rest of the book.
Certainly the strength of this book is in the dismantling of a half-dozen liberal doctrines that are taken on faith by Democrats and the media as absoCertainly the strength of this book is in the dismantling of a half-dozen liberal doctrines that are taken on faith by Democrats and the media as absolute truths with little or no inspection of the facts. Dinesh inspects the fact, explains from these facts how the doctrines are not true, and in often shows an optimistic view of his fellows in the process.
In listening to this 10 years after it was published, we can say with certainty that Dinesh was correct about the upheaval around the world that has followed the American withdrawal under the Obama doctrine. Dinesh misses the mark with regard to Russia, however....more
Inspirational book about one man rising from poverty in Detroit to become one of the top brain surgeons on Earth. He discusses his strengths and weaknInspirational book about one man rising from poverty in Detroit to become one of the top brain surgeons on Earth. He discusses his strengths and weaknesses as a man, his devotion to God, and the debt he feels to his mother and wife. He is quick to give credit to those who helped him along the way, while charitable in hiding the names and motivations of his detractors.
Readers will learn about the college application and funding process for poor kids, medical schools, the difference between the US and Australian health systems, and brain surgery.
It's not a long book. I learned quite a bit, cried a little, was a bit nauseated (I avoided biology class as a kid), and felt uplifted by the book's theme.
Many short sketches and stories relate what Maugham saw and who he met while traveling through China following WWI. Most of those he rights about are Many short sketches and stories relate what Maugham saw and who he met while traveling through China following WWI. Most of those he rights about are British expats. Through his tales, he points out the differences and similarities between the Chinese and British cultures. The use of language is superb. The stories are sometimes funny, sometimes tragic, and never trivial. While called non-fiction, certainly it's a mix of fact and embellishments.
I've read that the book was quite popular, important to the development of Maugham's career and following. It is not difficult to understand why. It's superior writing. The only book I've encountered which I would call similar is "Tales of the Alhambra" by Washington Irving.
This is a print on demand paperback book made up by a series of articles and features focused on the most important of the pulp magazine: Weird Tales.This is a print on demand paperback book made up by a series of articles and features focused on the most important of the pulp magazine: Weird Tales. The book covers the contents, history, and creators. Because the articles are written by many different writers, more than one take is provided on some of the most important aspects of Weird Tales. There are also remembrances by some of those who wrote for or worked on the magazine and who were also long lived.
I enjoyed most of the book and learned a lot. It's a book for fans. While there are many different writers contributing to this book, they are all fans of the material, with very little in the way of criticism.
The only parts of the book I did not care for were the summary chronology of contents, "Then Howard's story appeared, then Glenn's, then Bob had a good 5-parter." Yawn. There was also one article about writers whose work did NOT appear in Weird Tales. Hey! Did you know I did not win a Pulitzer?
For pulp fans and fans of Arkham House, this book is a must....more
A first-person account of Raskin's trip to meet with B. Traven's widow, where she wants him to collaborate on a biography of the mysterious author. WhA first-person account of Raskin's trip to meet with B. Traven's widow, where she wants him to collaborate on a biography of the mysterious author. While she provides much physical evidence of the author's life, she is not reliable. Rather than cooperate on creating a new fictionalization, the Raskin recounts what he was told by each person he met in Mexico as he sought the truth.
While it is well written, some of Raskin's trip is trivial and not related so much to Traven as it is to a need to fill out the book....more
Certainly the best rock memoir I've read, having read books by Robertson, Peart, Isley, Helm, and Frantz. Ged takes the time to let us know where he cCertainly the best rock memoir I've read, having read books by Robertson, Peart, Isley, Helm, and Frantz. Ged takes the time to let us know where he came from with a couple of chapters spelling out the horrors his parents survived during WWII. These are so relevant today as people foolishly chant, "From the river to the sea," and make attacks against Jews around the world. This depth is not found in any other rock and roll book that I'm aware of.
The book covers the early days of Rush, explaining the comings and goings of members, the aspirations, the grind, and the triumphs with a sense of humor and enough self-deprecation and humility that it's far from any ego trip. Ged never tries to answer, "Why us and not the other guys," but leaves that to the reader to decide. He informs us through many memorable anecdotes that the three members of the band each did have their own single-mindedness about driving their combined success, a desire to master their instruments, a willingness to practice together, and some magic.
Thankfully, the book is written with a sense of gratitude, mentioning dozens who help Ged and the band along the way. The writer is also not one to spare the axe from those who especially did him wrong, and even in these instances, the stories are told with a sort of devilish glee, so that we are left smiling.
We also get to enjoy the short story of each studio album, each major tour, and many anecdotes of the proudest, funniest, and oddest moments of his career. He gets into his personal life just a bit, describing the friction being in a band causes in a marriage and letting us know he loves baseball, but he knows what the readers want and he provides it, "Ged, tell us great stories about being a rock star!" The names he drops are people he interacts with, not people he happens to brush by, so if there isn't a good story to tell, the name isn't dropped.
I did cry several times listening to the book. Hearing about the WWII camps by Geddy's parents, losing his father at young age, and the tragedies suffered by Neal Peart before he passed away deeply moved me. This depth of feeling comes from Ged sharing freely how he felt when thought about his parents' suffering and when he was living though Peart's tragedies. Geddy lays himself open.
Geddy is an excellent narrator, as he brightens the text with a laugh, often chuckling at himself.
Enjoyable and light autobiography of a member of one of the most successful bands in rock history. It should be subtitled, "Oh lucky man," as Illsley Enjoyable and light autobiography of a member of one of the most successful bands in rock history. It should be subtitled, "Oh lucky man," as Illsley was in the band on a fluke. He was an adequate bass player when the band got rolling, not a songwriter or someone who practiced 4 hours a day. He's honest in that he gives Mark Knopfler the credit, many times and deeply, for what made Dire Straits special.
Illsley does answer a few questions I've always had about Dire Straits, why did people leave the band and how did they get Sting to sing on their biggest hit? He does a good job describing how they came together, their early gigs, meteoric rise, album by album recording history, burnout, and wind down. He gives brief descriptions of many people to whom he owes a debt of thanks. He isn't great at anecdotes. There are a few, but very few. For instance he mentions Billy Connelly is funny a few times, and writes that several people are characters, but he doesn't show us that with illustrative anecdotes. He does mention a few people who were not cool, which is refreshing, as sometimes in these sorts of autobiographies people will talk about the bruises but not where they came from.
He writes about how hard big tours are, and here there is a bit of a blind spot. Their manager had never managed a band before. When Dire Straits schedule is brutal, even when they have become one of the biggest bands on Earth, they are doing that to themselves. They choose to work every night, where many bands choose to do shows 4 nights a week. They choose to travel in a convoy, where many bands travel apart from the crew so that the musicians get more hotel sack time. Their manager sends them to do many concerts in Italy, where they make no money and feel there is real danger, while other bands do not visit Italy or do a single show in Rome. They perform shows under the thumb of the Teamsters, while many bands refuse to do so by avoiding certain venues. I was left wondering, "Is there manager choosing, 'work them as hard as possible?' or is Knopfler directing the manager to 'push it'?"
Of course we have no idea how reliable the author is describing himself. He had been in 5ish serious relationships by the time he was 35 and produced a couple of children from 2 of the women involved. Any rough edges these facts lead one to expect are not seen in this book.
I started listening to a different audio version of this book, and then switched to this version. This version is better. While I give 2 stars to the I started listening to a different audio version of this book, and then switched to this version. This version is better. While I give 2 stars to the book, I give 4 stars to the narrator and audio production team.
This was named the top non-fiction book of the 20th century by the panel who assembled the Modern Library Top 100. This decision represents a complete failure of this Modern Library panel. For any panelists still alive, they should hang their heads in shame. While this book may be important to some, it's written by someone who was famous, certainly acting as an unreliable narrator anxious to buff his own reputation. As a choice for best book, it makes no sense, as Adams large themes run completely contrary to what we can see as the trends of history. It's the equivalent of naming the most important aeronautical engineer of the 20th century someone who worked on zeppelins, thus ignoring the trend that airplanes were far more important. It was a nonsensical choice.
Adams was born rich to one of the most famous families in American. He never wanted for money. He did work as a private secretary to his father, writer of history, professor at Harvard, and journalist. He writes in a strange style, referring to himself in the third person. Many passages are written such that it is presumed the reader has not only a knowledge but an expertise in the event being discussed. This is because Adams was truly a snob. It comes through in every chapter. If the reader doesn't have an expertise in the things he does-sniff-what is one to do?
Adams does make three predictions for which he deserves credit. He predicts the development of nuclear power, the European Union, and that a typical person in the year 2000 would have 1,000 times the power, as expressed by electricity or motor power, at his or her fingertips compared to someone in 1900.
On the other hand, Adams is guilty of so many offenses in this tome, it's probably a good thing he died before this book was published. -Adams spent the duration of the American Civil War in London. He pats himself on the back for saying he is going to seek a commission to join action on the field, but he never does. He claims that the work done by he and his father that prevented England from allowing the Confederacy to buy two ironclads was the equivalent of the bravery and leadership shown by the Union leaders in the victory at Vicksburg. He goes on at some length with the self-congratulations. It's offensive. Vicksburg was the turning point in the war, a year in the making, showing that Grant was the correct choice. Vicksburg involved the moving of thousands of men and tons of material against and active enemy and thousands of casualties. And this shows everything that is wrong with Adams. No matter what the circumstances, he is convinced he is the best, smartest, and most important man. God, he must have been a bore.
-The way Adams writes it, his father, the Ambassador to England and his boss, Secretary of State Seward, had more to do with winning the American Civil War than did Lincoln or Grant. Any policy or strategy that worked was "obviously" Seward's.
-Adams denigrates George Washington.
-Adams denigrates Theodore Roosevelt, giving all the credit for Roosevelt's successful policies to Adams' friend Secretary of State Hay.
-Adams, who is rich, is also against Capitalism. Those wealthy as he wrote should remain wealthy and people should obey.
-Adams denigrates anyone who works with their hands. Ideas are more important than anything that can actually be produced or done with hands.
-Adams denigrates Capitalism and the Capitalist who makes money doing something, see above. He has zero understanding that during his life standards of living vaulted forward thanks to Capitalism. But really, he did not give a damn that his lessors are enjoying a better life.
-Adams writes repeatedly that "he didn't learn a thing," from his various experiences. Truly, you rich, you get to do something easy and fun for months or year, "but I didn't learn a thing," dishonest.
-He also writes, repeatedly, that nothing interesting is happening if he is not personally involved. The politics of Harvard following the Civil War? Very important. Reconstruction? Not important at all, dull. Transcontinental railroad? Not important at all. Opening of the West? Not important.
-Adams writes that at the end of his life he is perfectly happy with every decision and every action he has taken. No regrets. His first wife, who evidently was an intelligent, highly sought after beauty, committed suicide. Yet he has no regrets. It makes me wonder if he killed her.
-Here at the end of his life he wonders why he was never asked to join the Cabinet, as his best friends were, and was never drafted to become a senator, as many in his family were. After all, isn't he superior in every way? I have my suspicions.
In summary, the book doesn't hold up. Short summary: Unreliable narrator filled with hubris.
Why did the Modern Library panel pick it as #1? Adams was a wealthy man of letters who writes at length that intellectuals are superior to generals, Capitalists, religious leaders, politicians, really superior to everyone. He writes that thinking things is actually more important the doing things or making things or earning a living or working to make others lives better. So yes, as an intellectual panelist, this is an attractive worldview. Endorsing it means going back to living in a caves, because you're not doing or producing anything, but you're the[ best Modern Library intellectuals.
The Guns of August remains the best non-fiction book I've read from the previous century. Modern Library has it at #16. I would not have Adams' book in the top 100, with my 2 star review....more
I listened to the Audible version, which is not yet listed on Goodreads.
The book should be considered in 3 parts: 1. Biography of Sumner Redstone's firI listened to the Audible version, which is not yet listed on Goodreads.
The book should be considered in 3 parts: 1. Biography of Sumner Redstone's first 80 years, in which we learn he's a successful jerk. 2. In his decrepitude, when his past bad acts have driven away his family, two women join forces to take advantage of him, vastly enriching themselves by feeding both his sexual deviancy and paranoia. 3. He is rescued by his daughter, who takes command of two large corporations, despite a lack of experience.
I knew a lot about Redstone before picking up the book. I'm a huge fan of Stewart's writing, and sadly this book is not as good as his previous books. The story lacks good guys; that's a problem. Stewart isn't either as sharp as he used to be or two authors is one too many. I think I've given all his other books 5 stars.
There are several problems with this book. First, through the first two-thirds, there aren't enough time stamps. Is Sumner 89 or 92 at this point? Is he 40 or 50 years older than the women taking advantage of him? We jump through something like 11 years with very few time markers, which leads to some confusion for readers. In the last third of the book, incidents are reported to the minute, "The text was sent on DATE, HR, MIN" when really "10 the next day" would be close enough. It's sort of weird to get both of these in one book.
Second, almost everyone is this book is super-rich. Each time one laments, "I'm through," the authors should remind everyone, "Through means $900M or $100M or whatever in the bank." The authors seem to fall in to the trap of believing the baloney that someone super-rich walking away from a conflict is "through." The authors became disoriented when covering this subject, getting lost in the rarefied air of $100M+ households.
Third, while the authors touch on this a bit, they are not critical enough. Shari Redstone becomes chairman of CBS/Viacom because of her name only. She is not qualified for the job. That job should be held by someone who spent a career in media. Every time she laments, "I want real responsibility," the authors fail to mention she has almost no relevant experience and that jumping her to the top rungs means someone else who has spent a lifetime preparing has been passed over. And we see this in the results. As I write this CBSViacom stock, now Paramount, is worth exactly what it was worth in 1999, 24 years ago. Their return on equity is less than 5%. That is truly pathetic. Disney has tripled over this period. Fox, which only got started in 1986, is now larger than CBSViacom.
Fourth, the authors are a bit too dispassionate in the telling. When 90-year-old Redstone, who looks like a dying fish, is lunging at women to cop a feel, the authors should include a "disgusting" or "perverted" or "foul-smelling" or "creepy" every few pages. Similarly, when the story turns to Les Moonves' habitually lying, trying to save his ultra-high paying job at CBS, the authors never describe him as a "serial liar" when it has become clear to readers that he is.
Two further quibbles. Like so many writers, the word "war" is used incorrectly. If Shari Redstone is going to war with Moonves, she would pull out a gun and shoot him. The word war should not be cheapened as a description of white-collar conflicts. No babies are blown to bits by while-collar conflicts.
The book gets off on a very sad note from which it never fully recovers. James B. Stewart's byline should appear in the WSJ. It's difficult to read and feels so wrong that's he's fallen so far that he's working in the sewer of identity-politics journalism known as the NYT....more
Certainly one of the most enjoyable autobiographies I've come across, written with humor and wit, while covering topics of such major importance yet sCertainly one of the most enjoyable autobiographies I've come across, written with humor and wit, while covering topics of such major importance yet so infrequently discussed today. Many sharp quotations and, written in 1930, with a certain degree of prescience with regards to the Second World War.
*Churchill refused to study Latin and Greek, therefore was last in his class through middle school. *Churchill had a near photographic memory. *Churchill only got into Sandhurst because of the famous family. Admitted at the lowest tier, he graduated 8th in his class, as he was quite brilliant once excused from Latin and Greek. He writes he was poor at math and French, yet we know he did pass math and by the time of WWI was excellent at French, both spoken and written. *Won the British public school fencing championship *In his early 20's, was an excellent polo player *Was stationed in India a few year *While on leave, traveled to both Cuba and Greece to see "the action"--Cuban revolution and at Turk-Greek conflict *Must have been a terrific pain as he constantly sought transfers into the fighting, rather than stick with his regiment. *Saw action in India as an officer, quite dangerous *Saw action in Africa, as in his book "The River Wars" *In South Africa, saw action as an officer, correspondent, and as an officer/correspondent. As seen in the film, "Young Churchill." I quite like that he mentions by name the men who helped in his escape following his capture, something he could not do in his earlier book, for fear they'd be hung or shot. *The incident of the armored train is well known. Many years later Churchill arranged for the engineer of the train to be awarded The Albert Medal, the highest British award for a non-combatant. I believe it came with a pension. I found this quite lovely. *Churchill mentions the injustice of "Scapegoats of the Empire" but does not offer his opinion, which seems odd. *Churchill mentions a few times that he has no patience for the big thinkers/big drinkers of Oxford and Cambridge if they are not men of morals and effectiveness. *During his first speaking tour of America, following his return from South Africa, Churchill met Mark Twain! Churchill was a big fan of Mark Twain. *During his years stationed in India, rough ages 18 - 22, from 11 a.m. until 5 p.m., the men were under cover to avoid the heat. Churchill used these hours to read, vastly furthering the boundaries of his education. *I was surprised how many British officers must have required substantial financial support from their families. *For periods Churchill was an officer with a commission, but unpaid! *Lovely final passage, "Until I was married and lived happily ever after."
The author does a terrific job of mixing Hyack's academic biography with his work as a UFO investigator with a history of the most dramatic UFO encounThe author does a terrific job of mixing Hyack's academic biography with his work as a UFO investigator with a history of the most dramatic UFO encounters in the U.S. along with some history of science fiction as well. Very good handling of a lot of material in an entertaining way, with excellent writing throughout.
I disagreed with the author on a couple of points, but these disagreements are minor. Calling Hyack the first crowd funder, for instance disregards many "by mail" efforts dating back to at least the U.S. Civil War. I think the 1966 Michigan events were lights seen through swamp gas, having witnessed something like this myself. Some UFO events are caused by the atmosphere working as a lens. I always wonder why people who believe in desert mirages don't get this. But again, these disagreements are slight.
Excellent narrator.
Anyone who likes this book will likely also enjoy Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base," which also received 4 stars....more
A primer discussing the sections of and amendments to The Constitution, sprinkled with Dr. Carson's conclusions for how these rules should interpretedA primer discussing the sections of and amendments to The Constitution, sprinkled with Dr. Carson's conclusions for how these rules should interpreted when used as a lens to view current issues that The Founders never anticipated. His explanations for the origin and meaning of The Constitution are excellent. There are several good quotes which crystalize the President's, Congress', and citizens' duties under The Constitution throughout the book.
The author mixes four things into one book, three of them effectively. In part it is partial biography of the great Graham Greene. There's a very longThe author mixes four things into one book, three of them effectively. In part it is partial biography of the great Graham Greene. There's a very long 2-volume and a long 1-volume biography of Greene available, but for many this shorter version will be enough. It covers Greene's early professional career, his later messed up love life, and a bit about his days in espionage.
This is mixed with everything, including the trivial, regarding his visits to Cuba. In Cuba he wrote "Our Man in Havana," both the novel and the screenplay. Later in life Greene wrote two long influential post-revolution articles about Cuba, for which he twice interviewed the evil Fidel Castro.
The book includes an excellent history of the Cuban revolution, with portraits of Cuba pre- and post-revolution. Certainly there are many full books with this as the topic, but for many of this, 30 or 40 pages is much better than a Wikipedia entry, but not so long as to be left on the shelf.
The fourth element, a ton of trivial stuff about Cuba, is not helpful and detracts from the overall effort. Including a few pages about the terribly cast "Havana," is an example of something pulled into the book that I read as unfocused. This book would have got a 4th star if it were 10% shorter.
The late Hitchens and I are bound by our love of the novels of Graham Greene and the writings of Orwell. Like Orwell, Hitchens is a man of the left, bThe late Hitchens and I are bound by our love of the novels of Graham Greene and the writings of Orwell. Like Orwell, Hitchens is a man of the left, but best known for his variances from pure left dogma, as well as his atheism. While he does not admit this in the book or the interviews done at the time of the book's release, I suspect he knew he had very little time left on this Earth.
He writes down the things he does not want to be lost when he passes away. These include rumor clarification (who banged whom), family secrets, retelling recent history to sort out his disagreements with the consensus memory, and notes of appreciation to friends and family. Even though I am a newshound who followed both Invasions of Iraq, I still learned some important information from Hitchens.
I envy Hitchens' mastery of the written word and amazing memory, perhaps just short of photographic. I appreciate that he did not focus on his atheism, which is another reason I suspect he had little time left to him in this mortal world. I also appreciate that he came from a middle class background who, when he got to good schools, realized others did not realize how lucky they were to have this lifestyle. That observations on this point remind me of my own experience.
Certainly the most moving portion of this book covers a meeting with the family of a U.S. soldier who died heroically in Iraq. This soldier volunteered, in part, based on Hitchens' writing.
One presumes he was fighting with his wife while writing this book, as she is hardly mentioned.
This is a very well-written history despite the lack of cooperation of the subject.
The author exhibits excellent prose. Not too formal, not too techniThis is a very well-written history despite the lack of cooperation of the subject.
The author exhibits excellent prose. Not too formal, not too technical, and also not too casual or loose, making the book quite readable. It's much appreciated that, unlike many other Presidential histories, there are very good summaries of the issues of the day.
The great weakness of the book could not be overcome. Arthur had all his personal papers burnt just days before his death. This leaves the great question unanswered: why did the "great spoilsman" who had run the Port of NY making his friends and family rich, lining the coffers of his party, become the President who successfully ushered in Civil Service Reform. I don't buy that it was just because Garfield wanted it, and of course we'd like to know what Garfield was thinking.
Two things I'd like to remember: 1. Arthur died from Bright's Disease, the same thing that almost killed me when I was 9 or 10 years old. I survived with via a low-salt diet and a year of no physical exertion. Today they treat the ailment with a 1-week course of 5 or 7 pills and an order to "take it easy for a couple weeks." Thank you Capitalism.
2. Arthur and his diplomatic corp were ahead of their time. They worked on several treaties that were not ratified by the Senate, but should have been. The ideas embedded in the treaties became bedrock US foreign policy sometime over the following 30 years, and in several cases remain in place as cemented doctrine.
Really, a terrific effort and well worth the reader's time....more
Terrific book! Jason Riley is a superior writer. Written in the style of the WSJ's big Saturday interviews, Riley mixes quotes from Sowell, his friendTerrific book! Jason Riley is a superior writer. Written in the style of the WSJ's big Saturday interviews, Riley mixes quotes from Sowell, his friends, colleagues, and critics to weave a history of Sowell's professional life and his intellectual pursuits as an academic and author. The book quickly skips through Sowell's early life. The action picks up when Sowell is admitted to Harvard to complete his undergraduate degree.
I didn't know anything about Sowell's personal history until reading this book. I now hold him in ever greater regard than I did prior to this read. My admiration was built on reading Sowell's articles and one of his books over the years. One must respect Sowell's intellect, which is matched only by his spine.
Riley weaves the narrative through the theme or major argument of each of Sowell's many books with what Sowell was doing professionally as he researched and wrote each book. There is a third thread to this weaving, as Riley pulls in how each of these themes or arguments remains relevant today. What Sowell was writing in the 1970's and 80's applies to many of today's "new" movements, i.e, BLM, wokism, and equity at the expense of equality.
Riley is a truly excellent wordsmith. My only complaint about this book is that the final curtain's drop is a bit abrupt. I'd have liked more. I hope Riley finds a place to write a lengthy essay about what researching and writing this book meant to him.
I've had this sitting on my shelf since it first came out, still sealed. It's terribly disappointing. Meant to celebrate the tearing down of the BerliI've had this sitting on my shelf since it first came out, still sealed. It's terribly disappointing. Meant to celebrate the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, three of the creators instead attack capitalism. I was very happy when the wall went down. I have a picture of myself somewhere with the section of the wall that Microsoft moved to its campus in Redmond.
But here we have 3 creators who essentially dismiss the lack of creative freedom, terrible living conditions, shortened lifespans, and political slavery that was East Germany and instead let readers know the "real" problem is capitalism, that terrible system in which one chooses how to make a living, how to spend one's own time and money, and can spend as much time as one would like creating as long some time is spent producing a good or service someone else is willing to buy. It just proves one can be considered a talented comic creator and still be an absolute idiot....more
Loading...
